T-80U vs T-72B1 | Armor Penetration Simulation 

Would you be willing on helping me set up a similar simulation? I am working on getting an ANSYS explicit dynamic simulation on armor penetration across multiple different setups of armor comparing materials ect for a school project and would love some help on how you set these simulations up. Thanks!

I wonder if fragments would pierce the bottom of the turret and into the chassis top

Are the reflective plates simulated? Can we see penetrator velocities in colour from more angles? Correct me if I'm wrong, my understanding is that reflective plates are supposed to shatter the round by sending shockwaves sideways into the penetrator but in the sim the first penetrator doesn't shatter

@@m3talgame20 The armor layout in the first picture is shown from above.

What is LoS?

The spaced angled plates put the rod under lots of shear and lateral load which: 1- deflects the rod and increases the surface area 2- shatters brittle rods (i.e. DU)

@@TheLadderman Not sure how well that aspect is represented in this simulation though...

@@TheLadderman t-72B doesn't use NERA in its turret armor it uses reflective plates of RHA steel. Even the hull of T-72B did away with NERA for reflective plates. The only T-72's that uses NERA are the T-72 ural and T-72A which uses textolite for the hull and quartz filler for the turret

NERA composed of reflector plates, not spaced armor. Spaced armor wouldn't have the rubber between the sheets of steel, meant to deform the plate in both a rearward and forward direction, towards the penetrator, as well as causing the penetrator to have a portion of it's forward section of the rod, to start curving towards the face of the reflector plates.

@@nemisous83 Russian reflective plates are a form of NERA (one of the first), hence the rubber in between the plates that expand to push the plates towards and away from the penetrator.

You need detail schematics for that. T72 is pretty much the most modern info known out there.

T-72B doesn't use NERA it just uses reflective plates of RHA steel. The only T-72's that use NERA is T-72 Ural and T-72A which use Textolite for the hull and quartz filler for the turret

Reflecting plates is a kind of non explosive reactive armor

@@nemisous83 That's not NERA (the textolite/steel sandwich or Quartz turret filler), that's composite armour. the reflective plates are NERA.

@@kiagh8123 NERA is any type non explosive reactive armor which would encompass quartz filler and textolite. However NERA is an umbrella term for any composite armor that degrades HEAT or APFSDS that isn't entirely made of homogenous steel. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-explosive_reactive_armor

Looks like the penetrator is trying to line up to pen the spaced armor plates, which makes it's angle of attack closer to being parallel to the inner armor, thus increasing the effective thickness

I agree seeing multiple .50 HMG rounds would be enjoyable, but I think the effect you’re looking for would be better demonstrated on a 30-35mm plate. .50 rounds are known to go through up to 25mm armor plate, and I think that it wouldn’t properly demonstrate the armor degradation

@@blackberry_seed8390 What would also be interesting to see is, how many .50 HMG rounds it would take to get through a 40-45mm plate when they all hit about the same point. Or maybe it isnt even possible, who knows.

@@Kortonox Hes' already simulated this with 7.62 go look at his videos.

@@N4CR I remember that he did a simulation like that, but I cant remember how thick the plate was.

That type of armor is useless against a javelin or a depleted uranium sabot from a nato tank.

@@travismccraw6013 In fairness to the NERA of the T-72B's turret, if the javelin is doing its job correctly the missile is hitting the roof, not the turret cheeks.

@@travismccraw6013 bruh when this was designed NATO was using 105mm

Ah yes, the usual _'mUh ThE jAvElIn'_ bollocks, I guess I have to get used to it...

@@travismccraw6013 The DU rounds are not that magical. They cannot go through 900 mm of RHA either. Some parts of the rounded shape turret are simply impenetrable.

I'd phrase it out as "even they can do that"

The fins disappear as soon as they hit the armor

Impact point as shown in the thumbnail. I also uploaded a picture in the community tab.

Tbh, it is nothing new. Just standard rod eroding throught multiple steel plate with spaces in between.

@@jintsuubest9331 idk maybe i am trying to overanalyze it and find something interesting

what this shows is, together with his T64 vs Chieftains L15a4 APDS, that NATO was severely fcked from 1969 onwards until the end of the cold war, because russian tank armor was way better than anticipated by the west and NATO anti tank rounds were not capable of reliably penetrating even the "cheap" T72 on combat ranges, wich had the "worst" armor composition of all sovjet tanks.

Какие люди

The T-80U has a near identical system as seen here. The only real changes would be some minor differences in the external angles of the T-80's turret, but not much would really change. However, the one real difference would be the use of "cellular polymer armor" without air gaps (apparently on most models minus some newer variants) instead of bulging plates. Only problem is it's near impossible to find any real statistics and numbers where the T-72's layout and composition is very well known.

@@Mach-2-Fishbed ya that cellular armor is different, i think the t90 is the one that uses the same reflective plates

I saw an early model of the Leo 2 armor, but not the Abrams. I would gladly do if there were adequate information.

If you are talking about the CIA doc, then it is not good enough.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 I thought only Leo 2 prototype are available. Is there any info on serial production Leo?

@@jintsuubest9331 I meant prototypes.

Produce plate. Cut them to desire size. Secure plate into desirable location throught various method. Out of factory you goes.

@@jintsuubest9331 would be awesome to that in film and how different composite armors would be made, that would likely be after such footages are unclassified or released officially

I think he is preparing new simulation for compilate during the compilation of previous penetrations. Then, put it into process just after it finishes previous one.

Yes. Some time ago.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 cool 😎

The armour will stop HEAT, they are kileld because of top attacks

that would be perforating. but the standart M829..... lets say, at best it would have a 50/50 chance. And that one was used up to 1988..... considering that and that the german DM33 also only entered Service in 87... T72B entered service in 85, T80B in 1978. NATO was severely fcked from 1969 onwards.

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 hm, what about t80u?

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 not really.. look at whats happening in Ukraine.. tank on tank combat is not a knight duel where you only fire at the frontal armor... tank is supporting weapon that helps defeat the enemy with whatever means needed... those "great" soviet tanks would be attacked by plethora of weapons, massed artillery strikes, ATGMs etc... armor thickness is just one small part of the overall formulae... problem is, people have their optics skewed by PC games... Defenders place their weapons in areas where they plan to attack the enemy... therefore they would not plan to fire at frontal armor of such tanks.. but instead, would chose areas where side armor could be hit... and it really doesnt matter what projectile hits the side armor... even ordinary 105mm APDS can destroy T72B or T80U if you hit it in side armor...

@@JaM-R2TR4 Ukraine is not comparable to escalation during the cold War. Yes there were artgm, rpg etc around in good quantities, but not as developed as modern ones. Also you would face clear drawn Frontlines, not like in Ukraine, where fighting has devolved in some heavier combat zones and primarily asymmetric warfare from the side of Ukraine. If your forces advance coherently, it is significantly more difficult for enemy light infantry etc to slip through your lines. We are talking about just a tank force of about 30k vehicles plus ifv etc on a shorter and clearer Frontline Than the one in Ukraine.

In the video, I present the most important information so as not to bore the viewer. If someone needs it, there are all the details in the description. By the way, the projectile type and velocity are mentioned in the video.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Sorry, I didn't notice how much information is included in the description. However, I still think that it is sometimes difficult to contextualize the simulation with the rest of the tank. Just something to think about

@@FloridatedH2O Sorry bud these videos aren't made for you, they are made for weapons/tank geeks like us. You just gotta learn more ;D

That's false. It is simply their earlier rod are less good against angle. And sheathed rod with W or DU alloy can actually perform better than non sheared rod at an angle, sometimes. And none of the surface the shooting at would be flat. We simply don't know about the internal angle of the armor plate.

I’d hazard a guess it wouldn’t help, I think part of the idea they are all at the same angle and orientation is to encourage the round to bend when contacting the last part of the cheek, hence almost hitting it side on massively reducing the penetrating performance.

It wouldn't make a big difference in this simulation as the T-72B1 was still using the old Kontakt-1 ERA which does nothing against kinetic penetrators, but a later modification of the T-72B would probably further reduce the penetration of a T-80's shell

The hull is simple, worse with the turret. There is quite a good drawing, but only from one perspective.

This is a simulation of a frontal hit on a certain variant of a T72B turret from the direct front. The basic t72 turret is made from cast RHA that has a hollow pocket in the "cheeks" next the main gun. In these hollow areas the various T72 variants have different armor packages. In this case a series of angled sandwich sets of 21mm thick RHA plus 6mm rubber plus 3mm RHA, set at 45 degree when seen from above. Infront of the inner 87mm cast armor turret wall is a 45mm thick rolled RHA plate. Between the sandwiched plate combos is a small air gap. The cast RHA acts as bulk armor material to resist penetration. The sandwich plate combos function as thin layers of armor at a minimum. The rubber layer bulges as a result of penetration and this distorts both the 21 as well as the 3mm plate. ( the latter more obviously ) this keeps feeding armor material into a penetrator. At the same time the different hardness of materials, angled plates and air gaps inflict different resistance on different parts of the penetrator which leads to deflections, bending and ideally fracturing of the penetrator. Cast RHA is cheap and can be cast in near net shape. ( ie lower cost in manufacturing ) Depending on thickness it performs a bit less than rolled RHA ( with thinner cast RHA performing worse than thicker cas RHA ). RHA stands for Rolled homogenous armor it is the default yardstick by which armor is measured. Its fairly cheap and can function as the structural component of which the tank is made. And to give an impression, typical mild steel has a 40% performance penalty compared to RHA of equal thickness.

Read Tankograd blog.

Description, and it doesn't matter.

+500mm RHA equivalent for sure, If we assume that the apfsds should penetrate 500mm. Theoretically, the efficiency should be + 600mm RHA.

That is not simulated. It's a drawback of the type of simulation that's run.

@@dwwolf4636 It has to be simulated or else there's absolutely no point of running this.

@@cajer30076 I'm not sure what type of movement you are expecting but they exist. In this context, the movement twould have relitively minor contribution to rod projectile, most of the work against the projectile is contribute by the thicker front plate.

@@jintsuubest9331 I am saying that no bulging action is seen from the sandwich, meaning that the material properties or confinement/boundary conditions are incorrect.

@@cajer30076 The front plate shouldn't, and can't move. It is too thick for the elastic material. The back plate did move, so is the elastic material. The upper and lower part of the plate that "survive" the impact did show sign of how a buldging plate would looks like after the fact. Buldging that shows big arc/curvature of armor forming required the penetrator to be sufficiently fast and small in diameter relitively to the buldge plate. At least that's what I think.

well, the L15a3 wouldnt have gotten that far. It had about 2/3 of the penetrative power of BM32 and worse energy retention.

K1 would be only visual experience as it has no effect vs kinetic penetrators

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 I am not gonna say it has but it should do something minimal like destroy the hollow tip what would than change in the normalization of the round? K-5 of course is self evident that it will have some effect

what the hell is a cope cage?

@@lightningstrike5024 That thing Russians added to the roof of their tanks hoping to stop the Ukrainians from kicking their a**.

@@Killerean the slat armor? thats just meant to reduce the effectiveness of anti-tank grenades from top down attacks in urban areas

Yes

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 I don't know what round would be best, but an oscillating turet penetration could be very intersting, if we take the French vehicules, they for most didn't got amasing armor for times but i think a low power shell finding it's way trough the 2 overlaping plates of the turret could be interresting.

yeah but only barely more penetration, not enough in the end.

Actual test show it depends on the target and impact angle.

i dont think either could survive being ran over.

90h

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Dang It was sooo good by the way i love ur content

I remember now.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 😃

Era will be there. But no, unless xyz find a way to reduce the solution time with increasing element, we will not see the whole thing together.

@@jintsuubest9331 thanks.

@@strakhovandrri it would be only visual experience as K1 has no effect on the kinetic penetrators.

The only way to angle it without removing the spaced armor would be to angle it out more which would mean more metal used and more weight

In general, apfsds doesnt bounce or ricochet on sloped armour, it just shatters, but that happens on really high angles (~80°)

@@chocokingchocolate1273 W and DU alloy rod will only shatter after they get pass an high angled surface. They don't really shatter against initial contact surface. Even pass 80 degrees. Sheathed rod are more resilient against shattering but at the cost of being less weight efficient.

It is angled. Just not that much compare to internal plate. It is an act of optimization. It not only has to deal with rod, but also scj. Thickness is the only real effective way to stop scj in this case (given the space constraint).

And RPG30 against Leopard and Abrams. 🙌

He did a couple scj sim before.

It would not penetrate

Unknown construction

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 oh yeah, forgot about that. Would it be possible just to make like, your own long rod APFSDS out of like tungsten or depleted uranium in the simulation?

Schematics

Нет, только в башню.

Doubt, but thumbs up for the idea. This or an X-ray laser then.

Shaped nuclear charge seems to be impossible due to physics of nuclear/termonuclear explosion. And just why we need it, if even smallest nukes explosion pressure penetration count in dekameters?

@@КанистраКеросина no you're misunderstanding, nuclear bombs use an array of regular shaped charges that compresses the plutonium so it becomes so dense that it goes critical

@@KClO3 well, ok, i thought you speaking about absurdically large HEAT

The surface of the armor plate has run out lol

Yes

Your replace the turret

You don't.

You don't "fix" tank armor, you replace it all together. I'm not sure if the specific segment is able to be deatched from the main turret body, but if not the whole turret body gets removed and replaced

There is no soviet tank with fiber glass in turret.

У ВСУ нет в нормальном количестве Т-72Б или Т-80У. У них в основном Т-64Б, а там нет пакетов, как у Т-72Б. Там просто сталь-алюминий-сталь. И стойкость сильно ниже

not really, there is very little tank-tank combat in Ukraine

@@KekusMagnus And how do you know this? Most footage we got comes from urbanized areas and it usually comes from civilians. As far as I know, there was even one tank battle near Chernihiv. There are also photos that show tanks damaged by tank rounds.

@@ЛеонидСеребренников-з8ы так выстрел-то по Т-72 происходит. Да, снаряд от Т-80 по Т-72Б. В описании написано.

@@KekusMagnus Its mostly shitty Russian tanks getting their asses handed to them by man portable western missile launchers.

Ukranians barelly have APFSDS ammo, and its all Mango, also, they msotly use RPG and Javelins among others to kill tanks. Ukrain doesnt have functioning MBts and they are getting reckt

@@TheTankCrew what? Russiam tanks stoping apfsds rounds, yes, expecualy the one ukraim barely has left. But there was only one tank engagemt, a T-72B3 destroyed a T-64BV from ukrain.

@@TheTankCrew i never said they havent,i said they are not functioning. And end up being abandoned or stay in the same place waiting to be "calibrated". The ones i saw were on the side of the road abandoned or ammo racked. But im going to look for more footage to see if there is any left working. You are putting words that i didnt said in my mouth.

T-80 versions was used by Ukraine. They have some unknown 3bm42U round, but most of the projectiles are probably older versions. As for the Russians, the T-72B3 and the T-72BM (T-90). I saw photos of the separatists T-72B once.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 thank you, is a simulation of the effect of the "cope cage" against RPG7 or AT4 feasible ?

@@nicolaspeigne1429 I'm trying Javelin

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Ukraine doesn't use t80u lol. They use t64bv

@@okakokakiev787 At least there were several hundred different versions of the T-80. According to global security.